Remanded

Sunita Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2022WRIA/15449/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Magistrate to determine the validity of a resignation submit by the petitioner's mother-in-law and decide the petitioner's eligibility for a Panchayat post, setting a one-month deadline for the decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of; directions issued to District Magistrate to decide appointment eligibility within one month.

Sunita Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15449 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunita Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the making of the application for the post of Panchayat Sahayak/Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator, the petitioner's mother-in-law, who was a Gram Panchayat Member, had resigned and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible for making the application.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's candidature has been wrongly rejected and the respondent no.6 has been appointed illegally. Learned counsel further states that once a resignation is submitted, then as per Section 12-F of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and as per Rule 60 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), it shall be deemed that the resignation had been accepted.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha, however, states that the resignation was not in its proper form inasmuch as it had not been counter-signed by the Panchayat Secretary and, therefore, it was a waste paper. Learned counsel further stated that the resignation was not presented before the proper Authority.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Smt. Sangeeta Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) AWC 1941 and has heavily

¶9

relied upon paragraph 6 of the same.

¶10

Since, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 6 of the judgment, the same is being reproduced here as under :-

¶11

"Having perused the documents on record, it appears that the resignation letter of Om Shanker was presented on 27.3.2008 but not before the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The said resignation was presented before the Chairman of Zila Panchayat. According to the provisions of Section 12-F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 60 under the Rules framed thereunder, and the schedule appended thereto, the Prescribed Authority is the District Panchayat Raj Officer to entertain such resignation. According to the aforesaid provision, once such resignation is tendered, the Member will be deemed to have vacated the office forthwith. The question, therefore, is as to whether the application of Om Shanker had reached the hands of District Panchayat Raj Officer on 27.3.2008 or not."

¶12

Section 12-F of the Act and Rule 60 of the Rules were also heavily relied upon and, therefore, they are being reproduced here as under :

¶13

" 12-F. Resignation .--A Pradhan or a member of a Gram Panchayat may, by writing under his hand addressed to such authority as may be prescribed, resign his office and his office shall thereupon become vacant."

¶14

" 60. Resignation by Pradhan or Up-Pradhan or member or Panch .--The Pradhan nor Up-Pradhan or member of Gaon Panchayat or a committee, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch wishing to resign his office, may do so by either presenting to the Prescribed Authority in person or sending to his address by registered post, his written resignation signed by himself and attested by the Panchayat Secretary, and upon so presenting or sending the written resignation the person concerned shall be deemed to have vacated his office."

¶15

Under such circumstances, without going further into the merits

¶16

of the case, it is directed that the District Magistrate will hear the petitioner, respondent no.6 and the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter take a decision whether the petitioner had to be appointed or the respondent no.6. This exercise shall be completed by the District Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.3.2022 GS

¶19

(Siddhartha Varma, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by GAUTAM SONI Date: 2022.03.14 18:07:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anarma Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laxmi Kant Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Rima Devi Vs Director Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahaar U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Raees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others